FAULT TOLERANT LEADER ELECTION IN DISTRIBUTED SYSTEMS
|
|
- Winfred Powell
- 6 years ago
- Views:
Transcription
1 FAULT TOLERANT LEADER ELECTION IN DISTRIBUTED SYSTEMS Marius Rafailescu The Faculty of Automatic Control and Computers, POLITEHNICA University, Bucharest ABSTRACT There are many distributed systems which use a leader in their logic. When such systems need to be fault tolerant and the current leader suffers a technical problem, it is necesary to apply a special algorithm in order to choose a new leader. In this paper I present a new fault tolerant algorithm which elects a new leader based on a random roulette wheel selection. KEYWORDS leader election, fault tolerance, distributed systems 1. INTRODUCTION Leader election is a common part of distributed systems. For instance, we may consider a distributed database where all the nodes need to reach the commit consensus. Most of the algorithms designed for this consensus problem use a node with a special role, the leader. In Paxos, the author does not present a specific leader election method [1] and this is why I tried to define a new fault tolerant algorithm. In the past, several solutions where developed for synchronous and asynchronous distributed systems. Garcia-Molina has one important result for each system [2]. Later on, many other authors tried to extend/optimize his work [3], [4]. Depending on the network topology, other algorithms have been presented until today, the Ring Election Algorithm [5] being one example. In Raft, a recent consensus protocol for replicated state machines, is specified an algorithm for leader election, which is simple and elects a new leader based on randomized timeouts - the node with the lowest timeout becomes candidate after the timeout passes and becomes leader when the other nodes vote it, in majority [6]. Here, when two nodes have (almost) the same timeout, appears the situation of split votes. Besides consensus problem, leader election algorithm is a basic component in many protocols, especially in environments where special tasks in the network need to be done by a specific node or where self-organization of network is necessary, such as wireless ad-hoc networks. In this paper, the proposed algorithm tries to minimize the split votes using a stronger candidate position condition and gives a chance to all nodes because the final leader can differ from the candidate (more exactly, it can differ from the round of vote coordinator, as described next in section 2). DOI: /ijcsit
2 2. LEADER ELECTION ALGORITHM In fault tolerant systems which use a node with a special role, the leader, there may be cases when this node has technical problems and it is not able to work properly. In this cases, we have to apply a clear procedure in order to choose a new one. The algorithm elects randomly a new leader between the remaining running nodes and only one node must be chosen based on some random condition. Because such condition may be hard to satisfy, in order to give almost the same chances for all the nodes, we can use a random roulette wheel selection approach, for instance. The algorithm is explained below: 1) Each node uses a finite local mechanism which collects all necessary informations from other nodes in order to use eventually a random roulette wheel selection; this local logic has to ensure that the node is eligible to run the roulette wheel only by satisfying the launch condition, which refers, for instance, to generating a random number in (0, 1) interval, but greater than chosen threshold, let s say 0.85; when the condition is matched, the node becomes a candidate and sends to all other nodes a special message with this number; 2) When one node receives the number generated by other node, it has to vote for sender node if it has not voted before for a bigger value in current round of vote; moreover, it sends his greatest random generated number in his response; 3) The node which receives all the positive votes will be the coordinator in order to run the random roulette wheel selection using all the numbers received from other nodes - the winner will be the new leader; 4) After the leader is chosen, the coordinator will send it a message and after receiving it, the new leader will broadcast a special/heartbeat message CASE STUDIES Let s consider a cluster with 5 nodes and 2 cases: the first with only one candidate and the second with two candidates for the coordinator position FIRST CASE First of all, we have the simplest case when only one node satisfies the launch condition. In the figure 1, it is ilustrated this case where node A is the candidate for the coordinator state. The figure shows the messages sent from A to others nodes and we will consider that every node responds right after the message from A is received. Because A is the only candidate, it will receive positive messages from all other nodes; combining all the numbers received from them it will choose node C as the new leader. In the end, node C will send heartbeat messages to announce its new role SECOND CASE In the second case study, we have two nodes which satisfied the launch condition nearly in the same time. In the figure 2, it is ilustrated this case where node A and node B are the candidates for the coordinator state. 14
3 Fig. 1. Case Study 1 The figure shows that node A sends the first two messages to nodes D and E, after which it receives two positive votes. Because node A initially votes for itself, in this moment it has the majority of votes, but it waits to see the responses from other nodes. In the next two messages, node B sends its first messages to nodes C and D. Because its greatest random generated number is greater that A s number, it will collect two positive responses (node D votes for B after it voted for A in the first couple of messages). Next, proposal from node A reach node C, but the latter will give a negative response because it voted later with B s greater value. Node B sends its proposal message to node A which will vote because its number its lower. After that, B gets one more positive answer and A one negative. B becomes the coordinator and after it runs the random roulette wheel, node C is chosen as the new leader. In the end, node C will send heartbeat messages to announce its new role ADDITIONAL SPECIFICATIONS One important result of previous work on consensus algorithms is that no completely asynchronous consensus protocol can tolerate even a single unannounced process death [7]. That is why it is necessary to use timeout-based methods in order to ensure correct termination for such an algorithm. 15
4 Fig. 2. Case Study 2 There are some special cases which need additional specifications: 1) If we consider the solution based on random number generation, we have to admit that multiple nodes might generate nearly in the same time some numbers greater than The probability for one node to generate a random number greater than 0.85 is To limit this probability, we could take into consideration changing this condition; we can redefine the rule such as one node need to generate one number greater than threshold multiple times sequentially; so the probability will be for two numbers and for three numbers; Also it is necessary to specify that every node which managed to satisfy the condition, votes first of all for itself and it will vote for other node only if the number received is greater than its own number; moreover, when such a node receives a negative response, it can revert its state as long as this means that its number is lower; Furthermore, it could be a problem if two nodes generate the same big number. The solution consists in generating random numbers with many decimal places (6 would be sufficient). However, if this happens and no coordinator can be selected, the algorithm will continue with another round of vote; 2) One node becomes coordinator by waiting responses from all the nodes, using a timeout - when all the nodes respond or the timeout elapse, the candidate verifies the votes and it will become coordinator if it has the majority of them and, eventually, it will run the roulette wheel with all numbers from other nodes; 3) If one node obtains the majority of votes and becomes coordinator, but after that receives a proposal with a greater number, it will send a negative response with a special flag saying that it is already coordinator in the current round of vote; 4) If one node which satisfies the launch condition has technical problems, it will stop until the problem is resolved, but the algorithm will continue through a new round of voting; 5) If one node does not generate a value bigger than threshold, then it will continue to generate numbers until it gets a proper number or until it receives a proposal message from other node; 16
5 6) If the coordinator suffers a problem, the algorithm will continue through a new round of vote; 7) If the node which is chosen to be the new leader suffers a problem right before the coordinator announce it, the coordinator can choose another leader if it does not receive a heartbeat message in a short time; 8) Depending on the system in which the election is used, there might be necessary some additonal steps for ensuring consistency between all nodes; 9) Every node knows anytime how many nodes are up. If at one moment of time, the majority can not be satisfied, the system will block until some nodes are recovered. The modified algorithm is the following: 1) Each node generates random numbers in (0, 1) interval. If three consecutive generated numbers are greater than a chosen threshold, then it will send to other nodes the greatest generated number and votes for itself; 2) When one node receives the number generated by other node, it has to vote for sender node if it has not voted before for a bigger value in current round of vote; moreover, it sends his greatest random generated number in his response; 3) The node which receives all the positive votes will be the coordinator in order to run the random roulette wheel selection using all the numbers received from other nodes; the winner will be the new leader; 4) When one node receives a negative vote response, it can invalidate his state; 5) After the leader is chosen, the coordinator will send it a message and after receiving it, the leader will broadcast a special/heartbeat message. To minimize the time a node must wait in order to become coordinator, we may consider that the roulette wheel selection can be started right after the candidate collects the majority of votes (half + 1). This aproach implies a change in every node behavior because it is mandatory to vote only one time in a round, for the first candidate node. In this way, a single node will be elected as coordinator. As we can see, we identify multiple states a node can be in: 1) Basic mode when a node simply votes for others; 2) Candidate mode when a node already satisfied the launch condition; 3) Coordinator mode when a node received the majority of votes; 4) Leader, final state; Also, we can see the types of messages which are send between nodes: 1) Proposal message; 2) Positive vote message; 3) Negative vote message; 4) Announcement message; 5) Heartbeat message (may be combined with consistency check message); 17
6 2.3. NUMBER OF MESSAGES Having v nodes, there are in total 2v 1 messages (not taking into consideration final heartbeat messages): 1) v 1 messages from the node which generated big numbers; 2) v 1 responses from other nodes; 3) message from coordinator to leader ANALYSIS One delicate discussion is about reducing split vote frequency and choosing a single coordinator, as explained above. Taking into consideration the mechanism based on randomly generated numbers which are bigger than a chosen threshold, 0.85, it is necessary to analyze which is the probability as such multiple nodes satisfy the condition. To experiment, in 1000 iterations there were generated random numbers, using a counter until the condition is satisfied. With only one single number generated, the probability is very high as almost all nodes generated numbers greater than threshold. Testing the condition based on two consecutive numbers showed that the probability is also high. In the first 100 ms, over 80% of nodes managed to do that. With three consecutive numbers, there were better results; only 22% of nodes generated big numbers in the first 100 ms, with an average of 385 ms. Using a threshold of 0.9, the probability dropped to 8% for the first 100 ms, but this time the average was 1.3 seconds. Furthermore, considering four consecutive numbers, satisfying condition would took in average over 2 seconds, which is not acceptable. As a result, suggestion consists in choosing the condition based on three consecutive numbers ELECTION PERFORMANCE Testing the proposed new algorithm in its unoptimized way, in which the candidate node needs to wait for all responses from other nodes, showed that a new leader is chosen in an average time of 210 ms, with a minimum of 64 ms and maximum of 851 ms. The histogram results are presented in figure 3. The work has been funded by the Sectoral Operational Programme Human Resources Development of the 18
7 Fig. 3: Election performance unoptimized way Taking into consideration the optimized form of the algorithm as mentioned in section 2.2, the average time was 191 ms, histogram being shown in figure 4. Fig. 4: Election performance optimized way The result is slightly better, but in both ways, in 90% of cases, the election finished in about 325 ms at most. However, the optimization should have a greater impact in bigger networks. It is important to mention that these results are mostly influenced by the time in which the fastest node manages to satisfy the launch condition. The tests were made using 5 nodes running on distinct virtual machines, having at least 500 iterations and using 0.85 as the trigger condition threshold. Regarding multiple candidates possibility, in less than 10% of cases there was a split vote, as shown in figure 5. The work has been funded by the Sectoral Operational Programme Human Resources Development of the 19
8 3. CONCLUSION Fig. 5: Split vote frequency The new algorithm presented in this paper is quite simple, easy to understand and time efficient. Its role is to choose a new leader from a set of nodes in a fault tolerant manner. This is done using a random selection wheel selection and is built in such a way to give a chance to every participant node. REFERENCES [1] J. Gray and L. Lamport. Consensum on transaction commit [2] H. Garcia-Molina. Elections in a distributed computing system. IEEE Transactions on Computers, (1):48 59, [3] S. Basu. An efficient approach of election algorithm in distributed systems. Indian Journal of Computer Science and Engineering (IJCSE), 2(1):16 21, [4] S.-H. Park. A stable election protocol based on an unreliable failure detector in distributed systems. Proceedings of IEEE Eighth International Conference on Information Technology: New Generations, pages , [5] A. Silberschatz, P. B. Galvin, and G. Gagne. Operating Systems Concepts. John Wiley & Sons. Inc, 7 edition, [6] D. Ongaro and J. Ousterhout. In search of an understandable consensus algorithm (extended version) [7] M. J. Fischer, N. A. Lynch, and M. S. Paterson. Impossibility of distributed consensus with one faulty process. Journal of the Association for Computing Machinery, 32(2): , AUTHORS Marius Rafailescu is a Ph.D. candidate at the Department of Computer Science at The Politehnica University from Bucharest. His M.S. and B.S were received also from The Politehnica University from Bucharest. His main research interests are transactional processing in databases and distributed systems. 20
Failures, Elections, and Raft
Failures, Elections, and Raft CS 8 XI Copyright 06 Thomas W. Doeppner, Rodrigo Fonseca. All rights reserved. Distributed Banking SFO add interest based on current balance PVD deposit $000 CS 8 XI Copyright
More informationTo do. Consensus and related problems. q Failure. q Raft
Consensus and related problems To do q Failure q Consensus and related problems q Raft Consensus We have seen protocols tailored for individual types of consensus/agreements Which process can enter the
More informationDistributed Systems. Day 11: Replication [Part 3 Raft] To survive failures you need a raft
Distributed Systems Day : Replication [Part Raft] To survive failures you need a raft Consensus Consensus: A majority of nodes agree on a value Variations on the problem, depending on assumptions Synchronous
More informationP2 Recitation. Raft: A Consensus Algorithm for Replicated Logs
P2 Recitation Raft: A Consensus Algorithm for Replicated Logs Presented by Zeleena Kearney and Tushar Agarwal Diego Ongaro and John Ousterhout Stanford University Presentation adapted from the original
More informationIntuitive distributed algorithms. with F#
Intuitive distributed algorithms with F# Natallia Dzenisenka Alena Hall @nata_dzen @lenadroid A tour of a variety of intuitivedistributed algorithms used in practical distributed systems. and how to prototype
More informationExtend PB for high availability. PB high availability via 2PC. Recall: Primary-Backup. Putting it all together for SMR:
Putting it all together for SMR: Two-Phase Commit, Leader Election RAFT COS 8: Distributed Systems Lecture Recall: Primary-Backup Mechanism: Replicate and separate servers Goal #: Provide a highly reliable
More informationAssignment 12: Commit Protocols and Replication Solution
Data Modelling and Databases Exercise dates: May 24 / May 25, 2018 Ce Zhang, Gustavo Alonso Last update: June 04, 2018 Spring Semester 2018 Head TA: Ingo Müller Assignment 12: Commit Protocols and Replication
More informationTwo phase commit protocol. Two phase commit protocol. Recall: Linearizability (Strong Consistency) Consensus
Recall: Linearizability (Strong Consistency) Consensus COS 518: Advanced Computer Systems Lecture 4 Provide behavior of a single copy of object: Read should urn the most recent write Subsequent reads should
More informationRecall: Primary-Backup. State machine replication. Extend PB for high availability. Consensus 2. Mechanism: Replicate and separate servers
Replicated s, RAFT COS 8: Distributed Systems Lecture 8 Recall: Primary-Backup Mechanism: Replicate and separate servers Goal #: Provide a highly reliable service Goal #: Servers should behave just like
More informationAgreement and Consensus. SWE 622, Spring 2017 Distributed Software Engineering
Agreement and Consensus SWE 622, Spring 2017 Distributed Software Engineering Today General agreement problems Fault tolerance limitations of 2PC 3PC Paxos + ZooKeeper 2 Midterm Recap 200 GMU SWE 622 Midterm
More informationDesigning for Understandability: the Raft Consensus Algorithm. Diego Ongaro John Ousterhout Stanford University
Designing for Understandability: the Raft Consensus Algorithm Diego Ongaro John Ousterhout Stanford University Algorithms Should Be Designed For... Correctness? Efficiency? Conciseness? Understandability!
More informationConsensus in Distributed Systems. Jeff Chase Duke University
Consensus in Distributed Systems Jeff Chase Duke University Consensus P 1 P 1 v 1 d 1 Unreliable multicast P 2 P 3 Consensus algorithm P 2 P 3 v 2 Step 1 Propose. v 3 d 2 Step 2 Decide. d 3 Generalizes
More informationTransactions. CS 475, Spring 2018 Concurrent & Distributed Systems
Transactions CS 475, Spring 2018 Concurrent & Distributed Systems Review: Transactions boolean transfermoney(person from, Person to, float amount){ if(from.balance >= amount) { from.balance = from.balance
More informationConsensus and related problems
Consensus and related problems Today l Consensus l Google s Chubby l Paxos for Chubby Consensus and failures How to make process agree on a value after one or more have proposed what the value should be?
More informationByzantine Fault Tolerant Raft
Abstract Byzantine Fault Tolerant Raft Dennis Wang, Nina Tai, Yicheng An {dwang22, ninatai, yicheng} @stanford.edu https://github.com/g60726/zatt For this project, we modified the original Raft design
More informationPaxos and Raft (Lecture 21, cs262a) Ion Stoica, UC Berkeley November 7, 2016
Paxos and Raft (Lecture 21, cs262a) Ion Stoica, UC Berkeley November 7, 2016 Bezos mandate for service-oriented-architecture (~2002) 1. All teams will henceforth expose their data and functionality through
More informationDistributed Consensus Protocols
Distributed Consensus Protocols ABSTRACT In this paper, I compare Paxos, the most popular and influential of distributed consensus protocols, and Raft, a fairly new protocol that is considered to be a
More informationCS455: Introduction to Distributed Systems [Spring 2018] Dept. Of Computer Science, Colorado State University
CS 455: INTRODUCTION TO DISTRIBUTED SYSTEMS [ELECTION ALGORITHMS] Shrideep Pallickara Computer Science Colorado State University Frequently asked questions from the previous class survey Does a process
More informationDistributed Systems Consensus
Distributed Systems Consensus Amir H. Payberah amir@sics.se Amirkabir University of Technology (Tehran Polytechnic) Amir H. Payberah (Tehran Polytechnic) Consensus 1393/6/31 1 / 56 What is the Problem?
More informationExercise 12: Commit Protocols and Replication
Data Modelling and Databases (DMDB) ETH Zurich Spring Semester 2017 Systems Group Lecturer(s): Gustavo Alonso, Ce Zhang Date: May 22, 2017 Assistant(s): Claude Barthels, Eleftherios Sidirourgos, Eliza
More informationProseminar Distributed Systems Summer Semester Paxos algorithm. Stefan Resmerita
Proseminar Distributed Systems Summer Semester 2016 Paxos algorithm stefan.resmerita@cs.uni-salzburg.at The Paxos algorithm Family of protocols for reaching consensus among distributed agents Agents may
More informationData Consistency and Blockchain. Bei Chun Zhou (BlockChainZ)
Data Consistency and Blockchain Bei Chun Zhou (BlockChainZ) beichunz@cn.ibm.com 1 Data Consistency Point-in-time consistency Transaction consistency Application consistency 2 Strong Consistency ACID Atomicity.
More informationDistributed Commit in Asynchronous Systems
Distributed Commit in Asynchronous Systems Minsoo Ryu Department of Computer Science and Engineering 2 Distributed Commit Problem - Either everybody commits a transaction, or nobody - This means consensus!
More informationClock Synchronization. Synchronization. Clock Synchronization Algorithms. Physical Clock Synchronization. Tanenbaum Chapter 6 plus additional papers
Clock Synchronization Synchronization Tanenbaum Chapter 6 plus additional papers Fig 6-1. In a distributed system, each machine has its own clock. When this is the case, an event that occurred after another
More informationCSE 124: REPLICATED STATE MACHINES. George Porter November 8 and 10, 2017
CSE 24: REPLICATED STATE MACHINES George Porter November 8 and 0, 207 ATTRIBUTION These slides are released under an Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported (CC BY-NC-SA 3.0) Creative Commons
More informationCSE 5306 Distributed Systems. Synchronization
CSE 5306 Distributed Systems Synchronization 1 Synchronization An important issue in distributed system is how processes cooperate and synchronize with one another Cooperation is partially supported by
More informationToday: Fault Tolerance
Today: Fault Tolerance Agreement in presence of faults Two army problem Byzantine generals problem Reliable communication Distributed commit Two phase commit Three phase commit Paxos Failure recovery Checkpointing
More informationRecovering from a Crash. Three-Phase Commit
Recovering from a Crash If INIT : abort locally and inform coordinator If Ready, contact another process Q and examine Q s state Lecture 18, page 23 Three-Phase Commit Two phase commit: problem if coordinator
More informationCoordination 1. To do. Mutual exclusion Election algorithms Next time: Global state. q q q
Coordination 1 To do q q q Mutual exclusion Election algorithms Next time: Global state Coordination and agreement in US Congress 1798-2015 Process coordination How can processes coordinate their action?
More informationA Two-Layer Hybrid Algorithm for Achieving Mutual Exclusion in Distributed Systems
A Two-Layer Hybrid Algorithm for Achieving Mutual Exclusion in Distributed Systems QUAZI EHSANUL KABIR MAMUN *, MORTUZA ALI *, SALAHUDDIN MOHAMMAD MASUM, MOHAMMAD ABDUR RAHIM MUSTAFA * Dept. of CSE, Bangladesh
More informationCS /15/16. Paul Krzyzanowski 1. Question 1. Distributed Systems 2016 Exam 2 Review. Question 3. Question 2. Question 5.
Question 1 What makes a message unstable? How does an unstable message become stable? Distributed Systems 2016 Exam 2 Review Paul Krzyzanowski Rutgers University Fall 2016 In virtual sychrony, a message
More informationIntroduction to Distributed Systems Seif Haridi
Introduction to Distributed Systems Seif Haridi haridi@kth.se What is a distributed system? A set of nodes, connected by a network, which appear to its users as a single coherent system p1 p2. pn send
More informationToday: Fault Tolerance. Fault Tolerance
Today: Fault Tolerance Agreement in presence of faults Two army problem Byzantine generals problem Reliable communication Distributed commit Two phase commit Three phase commit Paxos Failure recovery Checkpointing
More informationDistributed Consensus: Making Impossible Possible
Distributed Consensus: Making Impossible Possible QCon London Tuesday 29/3/2016 Heidi Howard PhD Student @ University of Cambridge heidi.howard@cl.cam.ac.uk @heidiann360 What is Consensus? The process
More informationREPLICATED STATE MACHINES
5/6/208 REPLICATED STATE MACHINES George Porter May 6, 208 ATTRIBUTION These slides are released under an Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported (CC BY-NC-SA 3.0) Creative Commons license These
More informationConsensus, impossibility results and Paxos. Ken Birman
Consensus, impossibility results and Paxos Ken Birman Consensus a classic problem Consensus abstraction underlies many distributed systems and protocols N processes They start execution with inputs {0,1}
More informationApril 21, 2017 Revision GridDB Reliability and Robustness
April 21, 2017 Revision 1.0.6 GridDB Reliability and Robustness Table of Contents Executive Summary... 2 Introduction... 2 Reliability Features... 2 Hybrid Cluster Management Architecture... 3 Partition
More informationConsensus Problem. Pradipta De
Consensus Problem Slides are based on the book chapter from Distributed Computing: Principles, Paradigms and Algorithms (Chapter 14) by Kshemkalyani and Singhal Pradipta De pradipta.de@sunykorea.ac.kr
More informationDistributed Transactions
Distributed Transactions Preliminaries Last topic: transactions in a single machine This topic: transactions across machines Distribution typically addresses two needs: Split the work across multiple nodes
More informationDistributed Consensus: Making Impossible Possible
Distributed Consensus: Making Impossible Possible Heidi Howard PhD Student @ University of Cambridge heidi.howard@cl.cam.ac.uk @heidiann360 hh360.user.srcf.net Sometimes inconsistency is not an option
More informationA Reliable Broadcast System
A Reliable Broadcast System Yuchen Dai, Xiayi Huang, Diansan Zhou Department of Computer Sciences and Engineering Santa Clara University December 10 2013 Table of Contents 2 Introduction......3 2.1 Objective...3
More informationReplication in Distributed Systems
Replication in Distributed Systems Replication Basics Multiple copies of data kept in different nodes A set of replicas holding copies of a data Nodes can be physically very close or distributed all over
More informationAssignment 12: Commit Protocols and Replication
Data Modelling and Databases Exercise dates: May 24 / May 25, 2018 Ce Zhang, Gustavo Alonso Last update: June 04, 2018 Spring Semester 2018 Head TA: Ingo Müller Assignment 12: Commit Protocols and Replication
More informationHT-Paxos: High Throughput State-Machine Replication Protocol for Large Clustered Data Centers
1 HT-Paxos: High Throughput State-Machine Replication Protocol for Large Clustered Data Centers Vinit Kumar 1 and Ajay Agarwal 2 1 Associate Professor with the Krishna Engineering College, Ghaziabad, India.
More informationDistributed ETL. A lightweight, pluggable, and scalable ingestion service for real-time data. Joe Wang
A lightweight, pluggable, and scalable ingestion service for real-time data ABSTRACT This paper provides the motivation, implementation details, and evaluation of a lightweight distributed extract-transform-load
More informationDistributed systems. Lecture 6: distributed transactions, elections, consensus and replication. Malte Schwarzkopf
Distributed systems Lecture 6: distributed transactions, elections, consensus and replication Malte Schwarzkopf Last time Saw how we can build ordered multicast Messages between processes in a group Need
More informationConsensus. Chapter Two Friends. 2.3 Impossibility of Consensus. 2.2 Consensus 16 CHAPTER 2. CONSENSUS
16 CHAPTER 2. CONSENSUS Agreement All correct nodes decide for the same value. Termination All correct nodes terminate in finite time. Validity The decision value must be the input value of a node. Chapter
More informationPROCESS SYNCHRONIZATION
DISTRIBUTED COMPUTER SYSTEMS PROCESS SYNCHRONIZATION Dr. Jack Lange Computer Science Department University of Pittsburgh Fall 2015 Process Synchronization Mutual Exclusion Algorithms Permission Based Centralized
More informationAn Efficient Approach of Election Algorithm in Distributed Systems
An Efficient Approach of Election Algorithm in Distributed Systems SANDIPAN BASU Post graduate Department of Computer Science, St. Xavier s College, 30 Park Street (30 Mother Teresa Sarani), Kolkata 700016,
More informationConsensus a classic problem. Consensus, impossibility results and Paxos. Distributed Consensus. Asynchronous networks.
Consensus, impossibility results and Paxos Ken Birman Consensus a classic problem Consensus abstraction underlies many distributed systems and protocols N processes They start execution with inputs {0,1}
More informationDistributed Algorithms Benoît Garbinato
Distributed Algorithms Benoît Garbinato 1 Distributed systems networks distributed As long as there were no machines, programming was no problem networks distributed at all; when we had a few weak computers,
More informationCo-Leader Based Leader Election Algorithm in Distributed Environment
Co-Leader Based Leader Election Algorithm in Distributed Environment Gajendra Tyagi, Ankit Mundra, Jitendra Kr. Tyagi and Nitin Rakesh Department of Computer Science and Engineering, Jaypee University
More informationTwo-Phase Atomic Commitment Protocol in Asynchronous Distributed Systems with Crash Failure
Two-Phase Atomic Commitment Protocol in Asynchronous Distributed Systems with Crash Failure Yong-Hwan Cho, Sung-Hoon Park and Seon-Hyong Lee School of Electrical and Computer Engineering, Chungbuk National
More informationSplit-Brain Consensus
Split-Brain Consensus On A Raft Up Split Creek Without A Paddle John Burke jcburke@stanford.edu Rasmus Rygaard rygaard@stanford.edu Suzanne Stathatos sstat@stanford.edu ABSTRACT Consensus is critical for
More informationZooKeeper & Curator. CS 475, Spring 2018 Concurrent & Distributed Systems
ZooKeeper & Curator CS 475, Spring 2018 Concurrent & Distributed Systems Review: Agreement In distributed systems, we have multiple nodes that need to all agree that some object has some state Examples:
More informationEECS 591 DISTRIBUTED SYSTEMS
EECS 591 DISTRIBUTED SYSTEMS Manos Kapritsos Fall 2018 Slides by: Lorenzo Alvisi 3-PHASE COMMIT Coordinator I. sends VOTE-REQ to all participants 3. if (all votes are Yes) then send Precommit to all else
More information416 practice questions (PQs)
416 practice questions (PQs) 1. Goal: give you some material to study for the final exam and to help you to more actively engage with the material we cover in class. 2. Format: questions that are in scope
More informationImproving RAFT. Semester Thesis. Christian Fluri. Distributed Computing Group Computer Engineering and Networks Laboratory ETH Zürich
Distributed Computing Improving RAFT Semester Thesis Christian Fluri fluric@ethz.ch Distributed Computing Group Computer Engineering and Networks Laboratory ETH Zürich Supervisors: Georg Bachmeier, Darya
More informationA Case Study of Agreement Problems in Distributed Systems : Non-Blocking Atomic Commitment
A Case Study of Agreement Problems in Distributed Systems : Non-Blocking Atomic Commitment Michel RAYNAL IRISA, Campus de Beaulieu 35042 Rennes Cedex (France) raynal @irisa.fr Abstract This paper considers
More informationByzantine Failures. Nikola Knezevic. knl
Byzantine Failures Nikola Knezevic knl Different Types of Failures Crash / Fail-stop Send Omissions Receive Omissions General Omission Arbitrary failures, authenticated messages Arbitrary failures Arbitrary
More informationCprE Fault Tolerance. Dr. Yong Guan. Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering & Information Assurance Center Iowa State University
Fault Tolerance Dr. Yong Guan Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering & Information Assurance Center Iowa State University Outline for Today s Talk Basic Concepts Process Resilience Reliable
More informationProcess Synchroniztion Mutual Exclusion & Election Algorithms
Process Synchroniztion Mutual Exclusion & Election Algorithms Paul Krzyzanowski Rutgers University November 2, 2017 1 Introduction Process synchronization is the set of techniques that are used to coordinate
More informationImplementation and Performance of a SDN Cluster- Controller Based on the OpenDayLight Framework
POLITECNICO DI MILANO Dipartimento di Elettronica, Informazione e Bioingegneria Master of Science in Telecommunication Engineering Implementation and Performance of a SDN Cluster- Controller Based on the
More informationDistributed Systems 11. Consensus. Paul Krzyzanowski
Distributed Systems 11. Consensus Paul Krzyzanowski pxk@cs.rutgers.edu 1 Consensus Goal Allow a group of processes to agree on a result All processes must agree on the same value The value must be one
More informationExam 2 Review. October 29, Paul Krzyzanowski 1
Exam 2 Review October 29, 2015 2013 Paul Krzyzanowski 1 Question 1 Why did Dropbox add notification servers to their architecture? To avoid the overhead of clients polling the servers periodically to check
More informationCS 541 Database Systems. Three Phase Commit
CS 541 Database Systems Three Phase Commit 1 Introduction No ACP can eliminate blocking if total failures or total site failures are possible. 2PC may cause blocking even if there is a nontotal site failure
More informationDesign and Implementation of a Two-Phase Commit Protocol Simulator
20 The International Arab Journal of Information Technology, Vol. 3, No. 1, January 2006 Design and Implementation of a Two-Phase Commit Protocol Simulator Toufik Taibi 1, Abdelouahab Abid 2, Wei Jiann
More informationThe Timed Asynchronous Distributed System Model By Flaviu Cristian and Christof Fetzer
The Timed Asynchronous Distributed System Model By Flaviu Cristian and Christof Fetzer - proposes a formal definition for the timed asynchronous distributed system model - presents measurements of process
More informationFast Paxos. Leslie Lamport
Distrib. Comput. (2006) 19:79 103 DOI 10.1007/s00446-006-0005-x ORIGINAL ARTICLE Fast Paxos Leslie Lamport Received: 20 August 2005 / Accepted: 5 April 2006 / Published online: 8 July 2006 Springer-Verlag
More informationRecall our 2PC commit problem. Recall our 2PC commit problem. Doing failover correctly isn t easy. Consensus I. FLP Impossibility, Paxos
Consensus I Recall our 2PC commit problem FLP Impossibility, Paxos Client C 1 C à TC: go! COS 418: Distributed Systems Lecture 7 Michael Freedman Bank A B 2 TC à A, B: prepare! 3 A, B à P: yes or no 4
More informationThere Is More Consensus in Egalitarian Parliaments
There Is More Consensus in Egalitarian Parliaments Iulian Moraru, David Andersen, Michael Kaminsky Carnegie Mellon University Intel Labs Fault tolerance Redundancy State Machine Replication 3 State Machine
More informationCS 425 / ECE 428 Distributed Systems Fall 2017
CS 425 / ECE 428 Distributed Systems Fall 2017 Indranil Gupta (Indy) Nov 7, 2017 Lecture 21: Replication Control All slides IG Server-side Focus Concurrency Control = how to coordinate multiple concurrent
More informationDistributed Systems. 09. State Machine Replication & Virtual Synchrony. Paul Krzyzanowski. Rutgers University. Fall Paul Krzyzanowski
Distributed Systems 09. State Machine Replication & Virtual Synchrony Paul Krzyzanowski Rutgers University Fall 2016 1 State machine replication 2 State machine replication We want high scalability and
More informationhraft: An Implementation of Raft in Haskell
hraft: An Implementation of Raft in Haskell Shantanu Joshi joshi4@cs.stanford.edu June 11, 2014 1 Introduction For my Project, I decided to write an implementation of Raft in Haskell. Raft[1] is a consensus
More informationCoordination and Agreement
Coordination and Agreement Nicola Dragoni Embedded Systems Engineering DTU Informatics 1. Introduction 2. Distributed Mutual Exclusion 3. Elections 4. Multicast Communication 5. Consensus and related problems
More informationComparative Analysis of Big Data Stream Processing Systems
Comparative Analysis of Big Data Stream Processing Systems Farouk Salem School of Science Thesis submitted for examination for the degree of Master of Science in Technology. Espoo 22 June, 2016 Thesis
More informationUMCS. Annales UMCS Informatica AI 6 (2007) Fault tolerant control for RP* architecture of Scalable Distributed Data Structures
Annales Informatica AI 6 (2007) 5-13 Annales Informatica Lublin-Polonia Sectio AI http://www.annales.umcs.lublin.pl/ Fault tolerant control for RP* architecture of Scalable Distributed Data Structures
More informationMencius: Another Paxos Variant???
Mencius: Another Paxos Variant??? Authors: Yanhua Mao, Flavio P. Junqueira, Keith Marzullo Presented by Isaiah Mayerchak & Yijia Liu State Machine Replication in WANs WAN = Wide Area Network Goals: Web
More informationLecture 2: Leader election algorithms.
Distributed Algorithms M.Tech., CSE, 0 Lecture : Leader election algorithms. Faculty: K.R. Chowdhary : Professor of CS Disclaimer: These notes have not been subjected to the usual scrutiny reserved for
More informationTransactions Between Distributed Ledgers
Transactions Between Distributed Ledgers Ivan Klianev Transactum Pty Ltd High Performance Transaction Systems Asilomar, California, 8-11 October 2017 The Time for Distributed Transactions Has Come Thanks
More information21. Distributed Algorithms
21. Distributed Algorithms We dene a distributed system as a collection of individual computing devices that can communicate with each other [2]. This denition is very broad, it includes anything, from
More informationFast Paxos Made Easy: Theory and Implementation
International Journal of Distributed Systems and Technologies, 6(1), 15-33, January-March 2015 15 Fast Paxos Made Easy: Theory and Implementation Wenbing Zhao, Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering,
More informationDistributed Algorithms (PhD course) Consensus SARDAR MUHAMMAD SULAMAN
Distributed Algorithms (PhD course) Consensus SARDAR MUHAMMAD SULAMAN Consensus (Recapitulation) A consensus abstraction is specified in terms of two events: 1. Propose ( propose v )» Each process has
More informationEMPIRICAL STUDY OF UNSTABLE LEADERS IN PAXOS LONG KAI THESIS
2013 Long Kai EMPIRICAL STUDY OF UNSTABLE LEADERS IN PAXOS BY LONG KAI THESIS Submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Science in Computer Science in the Graduate
More informationAgreement in Distributed Systems CS 188 Distributed Systems February 19, 2015
Agreement in Distributed Systems CS 188 Distributed Systems February 19, 2015 Page 1 Introduction We frequently want to get a set of nodes in a distributed system to agree Commitment protocols and mutual
More informationConsensus on Transaction Commit
Consensus on Transaction Commit Jim Gray and Leslie Lamport Microsoft Research 1 January 2004 revised 19 April 2004, 8 September 2005, 5 July 2017 MSR-TR-2003-96 This paper appeared in ACM Transactions
More informationDistributed DNS Name server Backed by Raft
Distributed DNS Name server Backed by Raft Emre Orbay Gabbi Fisher December 13, 2017 Abstract We implement a asynchronous distributed DNS server backed by Raft. Our DNS server system supports large cluster
More informationCS October 2017
Atomic Transactions Transaction An operation composed of a number of discrete steps. Distributed Systems 11. Distributed Commit Protocols All the steps must be completed for the transaction to be committed.
More informationAsynchronous Reconfiguration for Paxos State Machines
Asynchronous Reconfiguration for Paxos State Machines Leander Jehl and Hein Meling Department of Electrical Engineering and Computer Science University of Stavanger, Norway Abstract. This paper addresses
More informationLeader Election Algorithms in Distributed Systems
Available Online at www.ijcsmc.com International Journal of Computer Science and Mobile Computing A Monthly Journal of Computer Science and Information Technology IJCSMC, Vol. 3, Issue. 6, June 2014, pg.374
More informationCommit Protocols and their Issues in Distributed Databases
Proceedings of the 4 th National Conference; INDIACom-2010 Computing For Nation Development, February 25 26, 2010 Bharati Vidyapeeth s Institute of Computer Applications and Management, New Delhi Commit
More informationReplications and Consensus
CPSC 426/526 Replications and Consensus Ennan Zhai Computer Science Department Yale University Recall: Lec-8 and 9 In the lec-8 and 9, we learned: - Cloud storage and data processing - File system: Google
More informationConcurrent & Distributed 7Systems Safety & Liveness. Uwe R. Zimmer - The Australian National University
Concurrent & Distributed 7Systems 2017 Safety & Liveness Uwe R. Zimmer - The Australian National University References for this chapter [ Ben2006 ] Ben-Ari, M Principles of Concurrent and Distributed Programming
More informationConsensus. Chapter Two Friends. 8.3 Impossibility of Consensus. 8.2 Consensus 8.3. IMPOSSIBILITY OF CONSENSUS 55
8.3. IMPOSSIBILITY OF CONSENSUS 55 Agreement All correct nodes decide for the same value. Termination All correct nodes terminate in finite time. Validity The decision value must be the input value of
More informationCheap Paxos. Leslie Lamport and Mike Massa. Appeared in The International Conference on Dependable Systems and Networks (DSN 2004)
Cheap Paxos Leslie Lamport and Mike Massa Appeared in The International Conference on Dependable Systems and Networks (DSN 2004) Cheap Paxos Leslie Lamport and Mike Massa Microsoft Abstract Asynchronous
More informationDistributed algorithms
Distributed algorithms Prof R. Guerraoui lpdwww.epfl.ch Exam: Written Reference: Book - Springer Verlag http://lpd.epfl.ch/site/education/da - Introduction to Reliable (and Secure) Distributed Programming
More informationIn Search of an Understandable Consensus Algorithm
In Search of an Understandable Consensus Algorithm Abstract Raft is a consensus algorithm for managing a replicated log. It produces a result equivalent to Paxos, and it is as efficient as Paxos, but its
More informationBYZANTINE AGREEMENT CH / $ IEEE. by H. R. Strong and D. Dolev. IBM Research Laboratory, K55/281 San Jose, CA 95193
BYZANTINE AGREEMENT by H. R. Strong and D. Dolev IBM Research Laboratory, K55/281 San Jose, CA 95193 ABSTRACT Byzantine Agreement is a paradigm for problems of reliable consistency and synchronization
More informationDistributed Deadlock
Distributed Deadlock 9.55 DS Deadlock Topics Prevention Too expensive in time and network traffic in a distributed system Avoidance Determining safe and unsafe states would require a huge number of messages
More informationChapter 8 Fault Tolerance
DISTRIBUTED SYSTEMS Principles and Paradigms Second Edition ANDREW S. TANENBAUM MAARTEN VAN STEEN Chapter 8 Fault Tolerance 1 Fault Tolerance Basic Concepts Being fault tolerant is strongly related to
More information